Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Magnetic Poles

Christopher,
please my work at (www.climate-change.expert) might I add that I did
not choose the title, it was chosen by others who thought me worthy of
that title.
Regards Roy Masters.

Response:

The first set of errors you made was when you stated,

because scientists could not find another plausible explanation for
these very similar results an assumption was made that one had to be the
cause of the other. So in this case human intervention was blamed for
the creation of greenhouse gases, which supposedly cause earth’s rising
temperatures through the so-called “greenhouse effect”. Unfortunately at
this point most scientists stopped looking for further causes of this
climate change impact believing the actual cause had been found.

No one in science bases their work on assumptions. You know what happens if you do? Someone else comes along and shows that you are wrong. Really embarrassing and very bad for the career.

Then, you make another false assumption - "scientists stopped looking for further causes." Why in the world would you assume that? What evidence do you have to support that? What about all of the work that has been done to identify and understand all of the natural variability that goes into climate change? Two assumptions - two mistakes. Stop making assumptions and use real facts.

The reality is, solar activity has been identified as being a significant factor in the naturally occurring variability, along with things such as volcanic eruptions and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Although, there are still many other factors involved.

You assume (again!) that there is movement in Earth's core that scientists are not aware of. Yes, there is movement. In fact, we can track the movement of the core and it has been found to be moving faster than the rest of the planet. The study of the planet's interior is very big science.

Yes, the magnetic poles move and we track them on a regular basis. Here is a plot of the north pole's movements:

Note: The illustration labels the magnetic pole in the north as the 'North Magnetic Pole." This is the notation used by geologists. To them, the magnetic pole to the north is the north magnetic pole. In physics, the pole to the north is the south magnetic pole. That is because we define a pole based on the way a moving proton will respond to the field. The way protons respond to the field in the north makes it a south magnetic pole.

Like I said, this is a very simplified illustration of the magnetic field. This is a more complete, computer generated illustration based on actual magnetic field measurements:

As you can see, there is a lot to the planet's magnetic field. There is a lot we understand, there is a lot we don't understand.

Let's look at the history of geomagnetic jerks (the term 'jerk' indicates a change in the acceleration - the third derivative, for those of you that get into those kinds of things). This is what Wikipedia lists as the history of geomagnetic jerks:

The clearest ones, observed all over the world, happened in 1969, 1978,
1991, and 1999. Data before 1969 is scarcer, but there is evidence of
other global jerks in 1901, 1913, and 1925. Other events in 1932, 1949,
1958, 1986, and 2003 were detected only in some parts of the world

Take a look at this plot of the global average surface temperature:

Let's take a look at the short term behavior (1-2 years) for the dates listed.

It said the clearest ones were observed in 1969, 1978, 1991 and 1999. Comparing the two plots shows us 1978 and 1991 are clearly big warming periods, both in the short-term and the running average. 1969 looks like a short term warming period while 1999 is a short term cooling (although the running average for both is warming).

It says there is evidence for globally recognized jerks in 1901, 1913 and 1925, as well. Looking at the temperature record for those dates we can see that 1901 correlated with a short cooling period. The event in 1913 occurred in a pretty stable period. The 1925 event appears to correlate with a warming period.

If we examine the dates for the 'other events' they are listed as 1932, 1949,
1958, 1986, and 2003. 1932 and 1949 appear to correlate with cooling, while 1986 and 2003 seem to correlate with warming periods. 1958 correlates with a steady period.

So, the tally, by my count is six jerks correlate with warming periods, four correlate with cooling periods, and two correlate with steady periods. I think we can say this claim is invalid. It doesn't seem to predict either warming or cooling periods with any consistency.

To the very best of my knowledge (and I teach astronomy) it has never been stated that the reason we see only one side of the Moon is 'coincidental.' This has actually been an issue of research and we think we are beginning to understand it better.

On the issue of diamagnetism - this is actually a property of all matter made up of atoms. I suppose you are correct when you say few people have heard of it, but the implications of your statement (at least the way I read it) is in error. There is nothing about diamagnetism that is arcane or hidden. It is (or least, should be) taught in every undergraduate physics course in the country. It is definitely in every one of the textbooks I have ever used to teach with. Here is a little Wikipedia bit on it. Diamagnetism is not a very strong magnetic force, it is actually very weak. The more common ferromagnetism (that most people are familiar with) is many times stronger. There is also paramagnetism. As I said, ferromagnetism is the form of magnetism that people are most familiar with. We are basically talking about the iron magnet (the ferro part of ferromagnetism). Diamagnetism is a very weak property of atoms that causes them to repel magnetic fields and is a property of all matter. Paramagnetism is a property of some materials and acts to make the material attract magnetic fields. The key thing to understand about diamagnetism is that it is very weak and does not have the ability to move the world's oceans in the way you are proposing.

You are greatly mischaracterizing Rossby waves. They do not perform the way you are indicating. Read a little bit about them here.

OK, you just stepped off the deep end when you started your bit about tides and the Moon.

What is the 'western side of the planet'? North America is the western side relative to Europe, but is the eastern side relative to Asia. I am not sure what you are trying to say about the poles moving and migrations going with this movement. Migrations happen all over the world, some may possibly move in a manner similar to the movement of the poles, but others most certainly do not. What ever you are trying to claim there, it isn't linked to the movement of the magnetic poles.

The release of greenhouse gases from the melting permafrost is an area of great concern and research. We are mostly concerned with frozen methane and CO2 being released in enormous volumes as a positive feedback to global warming. This is not new science.

You then go into "A New Theory" where you equate the magnetic poles with the geographic ones. That is a falsehood and they are very different. The geographic poles are not moving across the globe. So, the geographic poles (which are located in the Arctic and Antarctic regions) are going to freeze due to their geographic extremes. As the magnetic poles move, the geographic poles remain where they are and the frozen parts of the planet will remain where they are. Even taking continental drift into consideration, the continents will slowly change their locations, but the frozen parts of the planet will still be located at the geographic poles, not the magnetic ones.

I am afraid your 'undeniable' chart is most certainly deniable. Your final graph shows the velocity of the magnetic poles over
time and I am sure it would be possible to find any number of similar
plots. That doesn't mean there is any connection and you didn't show any
reason to believe there is a connection between your plot and global
temperatures. And, certainly, you did nothing to explain where all of
the extra energy is coming from that would be necessary for the global
warming we have witnessed these past several decades.

You used very faulty science and logic to reach a wrong conclusion. You say that the data you used came from the same sources as the scientists. It isn't the data, it is understanding what the data means. Once again, diamagnetism is not a 'little known' phenomenon, it is well-known and understood well enough that we know it cannot do the things you think it can. Plus, you are ignoring all of the well-known science surrounding the movement of the oceans and atmosphere without giving any kind of alternative explanation for all of the discoveries that have been made in the field. Any new advancement in science must be able to explain what is already known, and you don't do that.

I have shown several fatal flaws in your work. If it is something you want to spend your time on, that is your business, but it is not scientifically valid. The closest you came to giving an explanation for observed warming is the magnetic jerks, which we saw exhibits no correlation with warming or cooling trends. All in all, your 'new theory' is not valid.